Is the U.S. ready to repair the world alone?

March 23, 2003|By Clarence Page. Clarence Page is a member of the Tribune's editorial board.

WASHINGTON — As American tanks drove toward Baghdad, illuminated by "shock and awe" bombardment, I reread the words President Bush delivered to West Point's graduating cadets last June. "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish," he said.

The president also told veterans at the White House in November that "We don't seek an empire. Our nation is committed to freedom for ourselves and others."

Right. As a country born out of a colonial revolt against an empire, the U.S. does not like to see itself as an imperialist. "An empire is an immense egotism," Ralph Waldo Emerson once said. George Washington warned us against entangling alliances. But what else do you call a country that militarily, economically, politically and culturally dominates the post-Cold War world in the way that we do?

We do not have colonies, but we do police the world. We have more than a million men and women under five military commands that circle the planet. Our treaties and agreements guarantee the survival of countries as varied as Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and--mais, oui!--even France. American multinationals drive world commerce and our media, from Hollywood's movies to MTV, set the world's pop-culture standards.

As a kid, I had a T-shirt that read "I don't want to be a millionaire; I just want to live like one." Americans do not want to be an empire, but we enjoy living like one.

But much of the rest of the world refuses to share in our grand illusion. The Sept. 11 attacks showed us that the rest of the world will not leave us alone, especially when some nations continue to feel angry, rightly or wrongly, about how we have not left them alone.

On the outer stretches of our empire, Islamic radicalism struggles with authoritarian regimes that are propped up, more often than not, by American businesses and the U.S. government. We need not ask "Why do they hate us?" once we take the time to see the world through their eyes and experiences.

If the UN were not around, would the U.S. be prepared to build new ad hoc coalitions to respond to the new world disorder? Are we really ready to go it alone, not only to police the world but also to pay for the policing?

Americans need to recognize that our position in the world has changed.

First, when you live like an empire, you must pay the price, whether you call yourself one or not. President Bush has promised to plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq and spread its many gifts across the region. That's a lofty dream and he has not shown us that he has a clue as to how to pull it off.

The worst signal we could send to other countries would be to leave Iraq and the rest of that region with new chaos and ethnic strife to replace its old chaos and strife. We need to keep our promises, but in cooperation with other countries, not in domination over them.

Second, as many around the world have pointed out, the U.S. will not be viewed favorably in the Arab world, among others, unless it uses its mighty clout to play the role of an honest broker in advancing a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

It appears that pressure from his most important ally, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, brought Bush around to pledging a new "road map," once a Palestinian premier with "real authority" takes office. If it took Blair's near departure from Bush's "coalition of the willing" to get the administration to play the sort of role only it can play, so be it.

And, third, we need to rebuild our relations with the United Nations and other allies in a way that shows we are partners, not bullies who are ready to jump ship when we don't get our way.

Of those to whom much has been given, even more will be demanded, the New Testament says. The same might be said of superpowers. How they handle those demands will determine how super they will remain--and for how long.